1. How do you explain distant stars that appear to be like our own but in different stages of life cycle?

2. How do you explain light reaching us across millions of light years? If God made light in motion, isn't that pretty much tricking us by providing evidence for an old universe? The same goes for the "light used to be faster" argument.

3. If natural selection cannot bring order from disorder, how do you explain the various different adaptations that are found in evolution simulators such as the one in the video?*

4. What mathematical proof can you supply, based on the known equations of thermodynamics, that order can not spontaneously arise from disorder?

5. How do you explain the evolution of a population of Three-toed Skinks from laying eggs to giving live birth? Isn't that conclusive proof of "macroevolution?"

*The video is NOT intended to prove evolution, but rather to demonstrate the absurdity of that particular objection.

"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)

At 9/5/2012 1:10:38 PM, MouthWash wrote:1. How do you explain distant stars that appear to be like our own but in different stages of life cycle?

2. How do you explain light reaching us across millions of light years? If God made light in motion, isn't that pretty much tricking us by providing evidence for an old universe? The same goes for the "light used to be faster" argument.

3. If natural selection cannot bring order from disorder, how do you explain the various different adaptations that are found in evolution simulators such as the one in the video?*

4. What mathematical proof can you supply, based on the known equations of thermodynamics, that order can not spontaneously arise from disorder?

5. How do you explain the evolution of a population of Three-toed Skinks from laying eggs to giving live birth? Isn't that conclusive proof of "macroevolution?"

*The video is NOT intended to prove evolution, but rather to demonstrate the absurdity of that particular objection.

'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13

At 9/5/2012 1:10:38 PM, MouthWash wrote:1. How do you explain distant stars that appear to be like our own but in different stages of life cycle?

Did not the Bible mention them? Do they have life?Jeremiah 33:22"As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me."1 Corinthians 15:41"There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory."

2. How do you explain light reaching us across millions of light years? If God made light in motion, isn't that pretty much tricking us by providing evidence for an old universe? The same goes for the "light used to be faster" argument.

Why would God create a universe and life as a infant and not fully grown? Why does the star have to take millions of years to reach us if the light was already here?

3. If natural selection cannot bring order from disorder, how do you explain the various different adaptations that are found in evolution simulators such as the one in the video?*

Simulators? That explains everything.

4. What mathematical proof can you supply, based on the known equations of thermodynamics, that order can not spontaneously arise from disorder?

Get all the materials for a house and lay them on the ground. Then, take a dog and tie a hammer to his tail. Let's see how long it takes him to build that house from disorder.

5. How do you explain the evolution of a population of Three-toed Skinks from laying eggs to giving live birth? Isn't that conclusive proof of "macroevolution?"

Why dont you exsplain that it does.

*The video is NOT intended to prove evolution, but rather to demonstrate the absurdity of that particular objection.

I know it does not prove nothing, it does not prove any absurdity also.

At 9/5/2012 1:10:38 PM, MouthWash wrote:1. How do you explain distant stars that appear to be like our own but in different stages of life cycle?

Did not the Bible mention them? Do they have life?Jeremiah 33:22"As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me."1 Corinthians 15:41"There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory."

2. How do you explain light reaching us across millions of light years? If God made light in motion, isn't that pretty much tricking us by providing evidence for an old universe? The same goes for the "light used to be faster" argument.

Why would God create a universe and life as a infant and not fully grown? Why does the star have to take millions of years to reach us if the light was already here?

3. If natural selection cannot bring order from disorder, how do you explain the various different adaptations that are found in evolution simulators such as the one in the video?*

Simulators? That explains everything.

So no refutation? Gotta love that.

4. What mathematical proof can you supply, based on the known equations of thermodynamics, that order can not spontaneously arise from disorder?

Get all the materials for a house and lay them on the ground. Then, take a dog and tie a hammer to his tail. Let's see how long it takes him to build that house from disorder.

Another no refutation? Gotta love that.

5. How do you explain the evolution of a population of Three-toed Skinks from laying eggs to giving live birth? Isn't that conclusive proof of "macroevolution?"

Why dont you exsplain that it does.

They went from laying eggs.....to giving live birth.....which means what? THEY CHANGED!? OMG! Does that mean....

Noo...It can't mean....

Does that mean it EVOLVED!?!?!?!?!?

-facepalm-

*The video is NOT intended to prove evolution, but rather to demonstrate the absurdity of that particular objection.

I know it does not prove nothing, it does not prove any absurdity also.

At 9/5/2012 1:10:38 PM, MouthWash wrote:1. How do you explain distant stars that appear to be like our own but in different stages of life cycle?

Did not the Bible mention them? Do they have life?Jeremiah 33:22"As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me."1 Corinthians 15:41"There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory."

This isn't an answer. We would expect stars to have different life cycle based on our theory of how they form, and we would expect them to go supernova at the end of their live (which has been observed). I'm not arguing against God and I really couldn't care less what you think the bible is.

2. How do you explain light reaching us across millions of light years? If God made light in motion, isn't that pretty much tricking us by providing evidence for an old universe? The same goes for the "light used to be faster" argument.

Why would God create a universe and life as a infant and not fully grown? Why does the star have to take millions of years to reach us if the light was already here?

Because it provides evidence of an old universe. Answer the question.

3. If natural selection cannot bring order from disorder, how do you explain the various different adaptations that are found in evolution simulators such as the one in the video?*

Simulators? That explains everything.

Not an answer.

4. What mathematical proof can you supply, based on the known equations of thermodynamics, that order can not spontaneously arise from disorder?

Get all the materials for a house and lay them on the ground. Then, take a dog and tie a hammer to his tail. Let's see how long it takes him to build that house from disorder.

Thermodynamics does not deal with situations requiring human thought and effort in order to create order from disorder. Thermodynamics is limited by the equations and mathematics of thermodynamics. If it can't be expressed mathematically, it isn't thermodynamics.

5. How do you explain the evolution of a population of Three-toed Skinks from laying eggs to giving live birth? Isn't that conclusive proof of "macroevolution?"

Why dont you exsplain that it does.

I'm assuming this is a concession. I just asked you about the population of Three-toed Skinks living in the mountains that give birth to live young instead of eggs. This is not a difficult question.

*The video is NOT intended to prove evolution, but rather to demonstrate the absurdity of that particular objection.

I know it does not prove nothing, it does not prove any absurdity also.

Um, it proves order can arise from disorder through physical laws.

"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)

Did not the Bible mention them? Do they have life?Jeremiah 33:22"As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me."1 Corinthians 15:41"There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory."

This isn't an answer. We would expect stars to have different life cycle based on our theory of how they form, and we would expect them to go supernova at the end of their live (which has been observed). I'm not arguing against God and I really couldn't care less what you think the bible is.

This is a answer, you mite not like it, but it is a answer. Also you should start caring about what the Bible actually say's you could learn alot more.

2. How do you explain light reaching us across millions of light years? If God made light in motion, isn't that pretty much tricking us by providing evidence for an old universe? The same goes for the "light used to be faster" argument.

Why would God create a universe and life as a infant and not fully grown? Why does the star have to take millions of years to reach us if the light was already here?

Because it provides evidence of an old universe. Answer the question.

No it doesn't. I do not have to answer the question further until to you provide reasons that debunk my answers.

3. If natural selection cannot bring order from disorder, how do you explain the various different adaptations that are found in evolution simulators such as the one in the video?*

Simulators? That explains everything.

Not an answer.

So, simulators prove something? I can't simulate many things, does not show they are factual.

4. What mathematical proof can you supply, based on the known equations of thermodynamics, that order can not spontaneously arise from disorder?

Get all the materials for a house and lay them on the ground. Then, take a dog and tie a hammer to his tail. Let's see how long it takes him to build that house from disorder.

Thermodynamics does not deal with situations requiring human thought and effort in order to create order from disorder. Thermodynamics is limited by the equations and mathematics of thermodynamics. If it can't be expressed mathematically, it isn't thermodynamics.

So I guess the universe is not mathmatical? And that that mathmatical universe equated itself?

5. How do you explain the evolution of a population of Three-toed Skinks from laying eggs to giving live birth? Isn't that conclusive proof of "macroevolution?"

Why dont you exsplain that it does.

I'm assuming this is a concession. I just asked you about the population of Three-toed Skinks living in the mountains that give birth to live young instead of eggs. This is not a difficult question.

Yes, you have not even shown that this species has not always been around.

Um, it proves order can arise from disorder through physical laws.

It still does not prove nothing and it still does not prove any absurdity also.

Why would God create a universe and life as a infant and not fully grown? Why does the star have to take millions of years to reach us if the light was already here?

The need of a trickster GOD is not a very good argument.. And saying light was already their is a false argument when it is claimed Earth was formed in primacy over the stars, and the fact that we still see supernova from stars millions of light years away.. In fact the most recently detected nova's are in excess of 11 billion light years from Earth. These events alone invalidate your argument.. The life span of a star also invalidate your argument regardless of time it would take for the light of an exploding star would take to reach earth.. And if you have to rely on a trickster GOD, it just shows you are desperate and actually know it's BS. Any time you have to self-invent nonsense, it's proof of your lack of integrity.

Simulators? That explains everything.

Simulations still run and are based on self-organizing and adaptive systems. Push start and it runs itself and the outcomes are not predetermined in regards to us, but rather they self-organizing and adaptive system.. And these systems and simulations are based on research from the natural world, and biological systems. Such as self-organizing algorithms from the study of self-replicating molecules..

Get all the materials for a house and lay them on the ground. Then, take a dog and tie a hammer to his tail. Let's see how long it takes him to build that house from disorder.

All the materials for a house were formed from the death of high mass stars from which those heavy elements came to be from. Chaos theory isn't what you think it is, it's based on system feedback and the feedback is the control in which gives rise to higher complex. Your example makes no sense as it no basis on the underlining nature of order from chaos. Dubious to say to give a dog a hammer and nails to see if ti will build a house. But whatever the dog does with them and whatever happens is order from chaos.. From playing with them, to fearing them, to making scratches in the ground, even placing teeth marks on the hammers handle would be order from chaos. It's about interacting parts and feedback. And even the conscious state can not exist without this very exact same system.

Why dont you exsplain that it does.

That is not a valid answer to the question.. The fact it does is all he had to show, and it is "macro-evolution" by definition. Observed single cell algae to multicellular organism is also macro-evolution..

For one I would assume you actually watched the video. If you did, then you would find explanation.

4. What mathematical proof can you supply, based on the known equations of thermodynamics, that order can not spontaneously arise from disorder?

Get all the materials for a house and lay them on the ground. Then, take a dog and tie a hammer to his tail. Let's see how long it takes him to build that house from disorder.

Another no refutation? Gotta love that.

Again no reason was given. I gave a analogy that shows alot more than the question.

All he did was ask you a question that relies on theistic faith to answer (if possible). He isn't the one needing to provide reason. It is you, as the BOP is currently on you. Once you provide a sound argument, it THEN is on us to provide reason as to why you are wrong. That's generally how debating goes...

5. How do you explain the evolution of a population of Three-toed Skinks from laying eggs to giving live birth? Isn't that conclusive proof of "macroevolution?"

Why dont you exsplain that it does.

They went from laying eggs.....to giving live birth.....which means what? THEY CHANGED!? OMG! Does that mean....

Noo...It can't mean....

Does that mean it EVOLVED!?!?!?!?!?

-facepalm-

Did you hit yourself? Do not do that. Oh..No it does not show evolution. You have not shown these species have always been around.

Relevance of it "having always been around"? Even if I genengineer a species from the bottom up, it is still capable of evolution as the environment around them changes. It doesn't have to had existed throughout all time to be capable of evolution.

I know it does not prove nothing, it does not prove any absurdity also.

At 9/6/2012 12:05:08 AM, Koopin wrote:Oh come on, people are still using arguement #1?

Argument number 1 is quite valid depending on the theist.. It doesn't have much to say about a Deist or even a claim that an entity could induce a big bang.. But those who hold to the account in Genesis or Creationism in the modern American Creationist movement (YECs), it is entirely a valid question. And they can't actually answer it without stumbling all over the place, or needed a trickster GOD.. When they do that, we already know they are making up nonsense, and thus it's dismissed entirely.

At 9/6/2012 12:05:08 AM, Koopin wrote:Oh come on, people are still using arguement #1?

Argument number 1 is quite valid depending on the theist.. It doesn't have much to say about a Deist or even a claim that an entity could induce a big bang.. But those who hold to the account in Genesis or Creationism in the modern American Creationist movement (YECs), it is entirely a valid question. And they can't actually answer it without stumbling all over the place, or needed a trickster GOD.. When they do that, we already know they are making up nonsense, and thus it's dismissed entirely.

At 9/6/2012 12:05:08 AM, Koopin wrote:Oh come on, people are still using arguement #1?

Argument number 1 is quite valid depending on the theist.. It doesn't have much to say about a Deist or even a claim that an entity could induce a big bang.. But those who hold to the account in Genesis or Creationism in the modern American Creationist movement (YECs), it is entirely a valid question. And they can't actually answer it without stumbling all over the place, or needed a trickster GOD.. When they do that, we already know they are making up nonsense, and thus it's dismissed entirely.

At 9/6/2012 12:05:08 AM, Koopin wrote:Oh come on, people are still using arguement #1?

Argument number 1 is quite valid depending on the theist.. It doesn't have much to say about a Deist or even a claim that an entity could induce a big bang.. But those who hold to the account in Genesis or Creationism in the modern American Creationist movement (YECs), it is entirely a valid question. And they can't actually answer it without stumbling all over the place, or needed a trickster GOD.. When they do that, we already know they are making up nonsense, and thus it's dismissed entirely.

Or you just don't know the answer.

I'll set up the debate. It will be out within the hour.

I know exactly what you are going to do.. You're going to rely on trickster GOD.. Something similar to:

God drew all the light when he placed the stars.GOD made all the stars at difference ages.Light travels as infninite speed!

None of which you can empirically support or demonstrate. Especially when light supernovas from such distances would still take thousands to billions of years to get here, and we see new ones popup in the sky all the time.. And the life span of star isn't going to be 6,000 years.. And never mind the observation of the formation of stars we have, and even the formation of planets within new born stars.

So unless you can empirically support your argument, I am really not interested in a debate where someone makes up armchair arguments and appeals to ignorance.

At 9/6/2012 12:05:08 AM, Koopin wrote:Oh come on, people are still using arguement #1?

Argument number 1 is quite valid depending on the theist.. It doesn't have much to say about a Deist or even a claim that an entity could induce a big bang.. But those who hold to the account in Genesis or Creationism in the modern American Creationist movement (YECs), it is entirely a valid question. And they can't actually answer it without stumbling all over the place, or needed a trickster GOD.. When they do that, we already know they are making up nonsense, and thus it's dismissed entirely.

Or you just don't know the answer.

I'll set up the debate. It will be out within the hour.

I know exactly what you are going to do.. You're going to rely on trickster GOD.. Something similar to:

God drew all the light when he placed the stars.GOD made all the stars at difference ages.Light travels as infninite speed!

None of which you can empirically support or demonstrate. Especially when light supernovas from such distances would still take thousands to billions of years to get here, and we see new ones popup in the sky all the time.. And the life span of star isn't going to be 6,000 years.. And never mind the observation of the formation of stars we have, and even the formation of planets within new born stars.

So unless you can empirically support your argument, I am really not interested in a debate where someone makes up armchair arguments and appeals to ignorance.

This is not "trickster God, it is a logical position that can be defended with examples. The problem with many Atheists are that when they hear a good explanation or see proof they have to dismiss it.

It's quick and simple, how did God make mankind according to genesis? He did not make them fetuses, then babies, teens, ect....

Same goes for the ducks, he did not form eggs, then wait for them to become chicks, than wait for them to become adults. He made all creation at different stages of life. Even the fruit trees.

God did this for stars too. Why do we limit God? According to the Bible, if he can make other creation at different stages, why can he not make the stars? There are better arguments against YEC, however this is not a good one.

At 9/6/2012 11:28:07 AM, Koopin wrote:I knew you wouldn't be able to defend it. Never mind then.

I will post my argument in this forum for anyone who is actually interested in seeing why this is a bad argument.

No, I can defend it, the problem is, you have no means to defend your end, or empirically support it. Hence, if I wanted to, I could go on to appeal to ignorance to and claim magic unicorns done it. Your stance isn't even worth the time or effort, and resides entirely on an appeal ignorance. So when I am to ask you to empirically support your position, what did you think you were going to provide? I'm sitting here on a literal mountain of empirically supported data.. You however are not.

God did this for stars too. Why do we limit God? According to the Bible, if he can make other creation at different stages, why can he not make the stars? There are better arguments against YEC, however this is not a good one.

Actually it is a good one because they rely on a trickster GOD. This which really only proves they are making stuff up and pulling it out of their arse just because they can put those words together in a tossed salad of nonsense. And even then it will take the light and radio waves millions to billions of years to reach Earth.. And when we see a super nova happen, this to which we see often, it doesn't matter if you believe that star was placed there at that stage as for us to see it happen would require thousands to billions of years to reach Earth. And how far do you think these stars and galaxies were 6,000 years ago from Earth? Well, we can calculate that just by knowing ancient astrology and how today's star positions differ, and by observing the stars in question. And the galaxies and stars surely weren't 6,000 light years from Earth.. All those gamma rays would have made Earth lifeless. We know enough to know that YEC arguments are at best, Laughable.. It also reminds me of YEC claiming chemical environments would magically change the atomic decay rates of certain elements by a factor of a billion. Sorry, but they have no credibility, and they are essentially illiterate when it comes to anything regarding science.

Once a YEC told me that science lies and that light travels at infinite speed. I then said ok, demonstrate it and give me a peer review paper on light traveling at infinite speed. And then I provided him a simply way he can do an experiment to measure the speed of light. At that point I got personally attacked and proclaimed "evil" and a deceiver.. These people have no regard for intellectual integrity and there is no need to even engage them in a debate. They spend all their time trying to make up arguments to try and circumvent the empirical system and facts to which they then go on to assert as facts.

So if you really want to get into an empirical debate, go ahead because I will expect you to adhere to it and establish your claims empirically.

If You basically want to cast magic, and appeal to ignorance, I'm not interested.

At 9/6/2012 11:33:53 AM, Koopin wrote:It's quick and simple, how did God make mankind according to genesis? He did not make them fetuses, then babies, teens, ect....

Same goes for the ducks, he did not form eggs, then wait for them to become chicks, than wait for them to become adults. He made all creation at different stages of life. Even the fruit trees.

God did this for stars too. Why do we limit God? According to the Bible, if he can make other creation at different stages, why can he not make the stars? There are better arguments against YEC, however this is not a good one.

You may dismiss this as "Well God can't do that."

I am just explaining how it is according to the bible.

I believe you were given a bad version of the argument.

YEC wants to claim their theory is empirically consistent with modern science. The problem is demonstrated in the following proof-

1.There is a consistent relationship between the size an object and its mass (i.e. gravity).2. Light originates from an energy source (i.e. visible light is not created ex nihilo)3. Light travels at the speed of light.4. Any theory violating 1 through 3 is empirically inconsistent with known laws of physics, chemistry, and astronomy.5. If the universe was created 10,000 years ago, the furthest light humans could see would be objects 10,000 lightyears away.6. All observed planets and stars must exist within 10,000 lightyears of earth (2 and 5).7. This goes contrary to all known empirical observations regarding entropy, radiation, red shift, mass of the universe, dark matter measurements, and gravity (all of which point towards stars being at a distance of hundreds, thousands, millions, even billions of miles away).

8. YEC fails at establishing claims consistent with even the most lenient of scientific standards.